How does standard 4:3 ration looked cropped to 16:9 on the big screen?
 

Does it look pixelated because of the crop and blow up? I read that November (DVX-100) was cropped and they didn't use anamorphic lenses? Just wondering.

there have been other movies shot on hand size Dv camera's and transferred to 35mm .. most have shot on PAL so you gain a extra 100 lines over NTSC.

they do not looked pixelated ... they do excellent up rezing to 2k resolution.
you might rent a DVD that the movie was shot on DV and look at the "extra's " as they usually have out take scenes that were NOT transferred to film and you get to see the video - totally different look/feel to the clip ..

I don't know about going to a big screen using film transfer, but if you take standard 4x3 DV footage and enlarge/crop to 16x9 output using standard "prosumer" equipment, you can see the loss in quality which results. If you want to produce widescreen output, the best thing to do is either get an anamorphic adapter or upgrade to a true widescreen (preferably HD) camera. You can enlarge/crop DV to 16x9 and the output may still be acceptable to some people, but in the long run that's not going to hold up as being a good solution.

Well, I'm not sure that's accurate actually Kevin - it depends on the quality of the glass used, and most anamorphic adaptors have a pretty low MTF.

I've not actually looked at this issue and done tests personally but I do know, for instance, that after extensive testing for "28 days later" (shot on an XL-1s) both the lab and the DP decided to go with 4:3 and crop to 16:9 as it yielded a cleaner image.

Of course, shooting on a camera with 16:9 chips is a much better solution, all things considered, and much more available these days as well...